tv Charlie Rose PBS September 14, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program, tonight as the white house turns to tax reform, we talk to senator joe manchin of west virginia. he talks about his dinner last night with president trump where they discussed immigration, infrastructure, tax reform and bipartisanship. >> i've had more engagement with this white house and this president in the six, seven months, eight months that they've been there than i did in the six years that i was with the previous administration. and so i, you know, i appreciate having my words heard and my thoughts. i've been involved in public service, i've been the governor of my state. so i've gone through all of these challenges. >> and i have a perspective and i can share my mistakes that i made, hopefully we don't repeat them and also see the opportunities that we have. i just think that he is doing exactly what needs to be done,
engaging. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with part three of my interview with steve bannon the former white house chief strategist and current executive chairman of breitbart news. >> he doesn't put the russians up on some-- it's another fantasy of the opposition party. and that's my point. i don't take the media seriously. the reason i don't take them seriously t is a propaganda arm for the permanent political class. and all they do is make a mountain out of a mole hill. we should be focused on how we bring the cold war to an end so we don't have to and i think it was president obama's program, one trillion dollars to upgrade the nuclear arsenal, is that what you want to do would you rather spend a trillion dollars in cleveland, in baltimore, in the inner cities of this country where we need to spend it in the heartland of this nation. >> rose: joe manchin and steve bannon coming up. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> bank of america, life better connected.
>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information servces worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: president trump hosted today a bipartisan round table of lawmakers to discuss tax reform, health care and infrastructure. this evening the president will meet with house and senate minority leaders nancy pelosi from the house and chuck schumer from the senate to hear further input from the democratic leadership on daca and health care. president trump tweeted this morning that the approval process for the biggest tax cut and tax reform package in the history of our country will soon begin. move fast, congress. last night president trump welcomed republican and
democratic snrs to the white house as his administration moves forward with plans to overhaul the nation's tax code. senator joe manchin of west virginia was among those presented at last night's dinner and joins me now from the capitol. senator, welcome. i'm pleased to have you back after seeing you this morning. >> it's always good to be with you, and i enjoy being with you tonight too, as well as this morning. >> take me inside the dinner last night, not only with the content and not only with who said what about what, but also your feeling about where the president's mindset is, and what the at toes-- atmospherics were. >> it was a very good dinner. it was a very lively discussion. it was very productive. i am the firs time i've been invited to the white house to have a sit down kind of a semiprivate dinner to talk only about policy with the president. and it was i thought was, it was, i was very honored but it was very rewarding to do that. i had, there were six other colleagues of mine.
we had four republicans, there was rohrin hatch-- orrin hatch, the dean of our delegation as far as in that room last night, and then you had john from south dakota, ron johnson from wisconsin and pat toomy from pennsylvania. there was myself from west virginia and hidey hydecamp from north da coat's an joe donely from indiana. the president and the vice president. then we had carry goan and steve mnuchin and some of their stuff. it was all the right people to have the type of conversation we had. and we had a lot of the details of what they're thinking and we had a lot of good interchange and exchange back and forth. so we first started out talking as dinner was being presented, we first started talking about infrastructure, and what needs to be done. and we talked about public private. and my input on the public
private was that a lot of people are concerned that when you talk about public private that private companies, they could be private corporations or private countries, other countries outside of the united states that might own some of our infrastructure and that gave us a lot of pause for concern. but i said if you look at public private as i've known it, charlie, from being a governor of the state of west virginia, you can use that form and use the public private concept to accelerate these public projects. and that's where i think that they understood and that's where they seemed to say we acknowledge that. and we're very conscience about not leaving any of rural america, rural west virginia or rural america behind whatsoever. so we were talking about that. and then all the great ideas and great innovation and creation and things that were happening around the world, why we need not only to catch up but to be a leader in this. that was a very lively discussion and we went right into tax. the first thing the president
said, charlie, as we start talking about tax cuts, tax reform, but tax cuts is that there is not going to be tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. he said myself, or people in my category, does not need these tax cuts. that was refreshing, of how this kfertionz started-- conversation started out. but then we have to be competitive. but it's my taking of everything last night was the sin erjee was going all towards working, men and women, working families that are the backbone of america, making sure they finally get a piece of this, and the reductions in tax cuts should be going towards them. now everybody thinks about when we do tax cuts that we're going to be upside down and giving everything away. and i said to the president, the most concern i have was adding more to the debt charlie that we already have at 20 trillion dollars. i have ten grand children.
i look at these beautiful be conscience of the debt that we're carrying and the debt we might be loading on. we should be paying this debt down. >> rose: but here you are, you are worried about debt and the amount of debt, the 20 trillion that we have, and the president and his party are sort of totally committed to eliminating inheritance tax or estate tax. and that's a huge amount of money. >> yeah, i hope not, charlie. i think, all this, i took away from this meeting that we can set and reasonable people can come to reasonable solutions and thases' something that i did not feel that anyone was wedded to. i think that as democrats, you
know, i believe that there should be an inheritance but i think there should be an exemption. what we have right now is i believe the individuals a $5 million exemption. and two household members, a $10 million. so if it stays with that or they want to change that a little bit, but in that realm, i think that that something will be acceptable but to go ahead and exempt everybody, i just don't, you're right, that is a big cost. so when i talk about no due debt, we have to be looking. if you want democrats or moderate conservative, responsible democrats to be looking at this, and trying to find a pathway forward, i think they will be considerate towards that. and that will be part of the discussion and negotiations that go on. >> rose: let me pawk about three-- talk about three other issues. first in terms of the corporate realm. there is the corporate tax. the administration used to always talk about 15%. republicans and the congress talk about more like 22, 24 or 25, something lake that.
was there some sense of where it might end up last night? >> there wasn't a sense of where it ends up. the president reaffirmed he wants 15. i personally believe that's too low because i have said, and we had this discussion at the table last night. and all, steve mnuchin understood where we were coming from. i said we have the greatest economy in the world and for us to give up or discount ourselves to that point, when the global, the global corporate average is around 21, 22, 23, i think 25 percent democrats, like myself can support 25%, corporate rate territorial. because i think all in right now charl yea if you look at everything in, all corporations, that we're probably in 20, 21 percent. so it what be an increasement but when they score, they will score deduction 35-25 means you're going to lose money,
that's not the case, that's not the reality. so we talked about that. democrats understand territorially, we can't keep companies domiciled in the united states of america if we're double taxing them on what they earn here and what they earn abroad and try to bring it back. that is why we have many parked offshore. we talked about that. >> rose: stop there. people like apple and a lot of other big companies have huge amounts of money parked overseas, money that they made overseas, in selling their products overseas, what does the president want to do and what do democrats want to do? >> well, i can speak for myself and a few of us that were there talking. we want to repatriate. we all understand it has to be brought back but there are people been here longer periods of time that remember when the money was brought back before from repatriation, it was brought back and given in dividends an bonuses. and basically not put into the bricks and mortars, if you will, or the investment into their companies in expanding.
so this is what we are saying, if that money is coming back and we're giving you a tremendous tax break to bring it back, there should be some residuals from that. so everyone is still talking on where i think we could find a pathway forward on that, that one time money coming back. but if we do the tax code and make the changes and do it correctly, that should not happen again. territorial, territorial tax system will prevent that from happening where they have to park their money cuz we won't be charged in the same rate after they already paid their taxes wherever they had made that money and other countries. >> rose: what about interest which is hedge funds and some of those companies. >> i think they all understand that has to go away. that is, and i think even the hedge fund people, even the wall street people understand. that has been a tremendous ride for them. and it's time for that to be over it is time for that loophole to be over. but charlie, not just that, there will be many loopholes. when he says the rich, the superwealthy will not get any
tax cuts, let me use the hypothetical, 39.6 is our highest rate that we have in our tax code now. under the new plan let's say that we agree to reduce it to 35. you are thinking well you're giving up four and a half percent credit to these people. you're giving them a tax break. but charlie, we take away a lot of the incentives that you have, the write-offs, the credits that they're able to take advantage of. most of those are going to go by the wayside. so at the end of the day they're probably paying a little bit more. i've never had a person, i haven't had a person in that strats fear, if you will, saying i am-- i don't want to do that. they're willing to pay. they just want to make sure that we can get a tax code, that they can do business and be able to stay and live in america, be dom i sieled if america and be able to compete globally. and i think we can achieve all of that. >> generally when will is a tax cut there is always discussion
of eliminating deduks on the one hand or as you say tax credit on the other hand. >> i mean what, what conversation is taking place about what deductions mile be eliminated. the classic deduction in american life, obviously is a mortgage deduction. >> i think, i think that we always, that prime mortgage is sacred, okay. a person, the greatest wealth they're going to accumulate, most people in america is going to be that house they own, the property they own. so prime mortgage is always going to be kind of sacred and protected, i believe. i can't speak for other people but i believe very strongly. charitable donations help so many people. it really reaches so many corners of every community and every state. that, but there is an awful lot that has been piled on. you know, vice president pence came to west virginia about a month or so ago and gave a great speech. i happened to be in the audience and i heard him speaking and he goes we have to have tax
overhaul, tax reform, tax cuts. he went on and on and on. he said the tax code is nine times bigger than the bible but there's no good stories. and he said that in jest and it really is true. it has grown disproportionately. the last time we made any major changes, charlie, we didn't have cell phones. so we have got to-- . >> rose: 1986. >> we have got to get back and be the leaders in the 21s century, be the superpower and tiquated tax system.n. >> so tell me about his atmospherics. tell me about the tone of his voice, tell me about his ability to simply sit an listen to try to understand what you guys were saying. >> sure. >> well, he engaged. it wasn't he just sat there, and he didn't dominate. he let everyone speak it was a great exchange, and a very comfortable setting. i have been with him talking
one-on-one, i've always had the ability to have good conversation. we can agree to disagree. he said joe, could i have gotten you on the health-care bill. and he says maybe if i had worked harder. i said mr. president, with all due respect, i truly in my heart believe that we can fix what we've got. we can repair it. and i says you can be the leader. you can be the mr. fix it president because he came to this job in a nontraditional way, charlie. so we had those. we could have that exchange and it's a good exchange, it's healthy. >> rose: in the end that is what is going to happen am they will fix obama care rather than repeal and replace. >> i pray that we do that and i know that we can because there are good examples. alaska has done something great in reinsurance, indiana has done something i think is very attractive in holding people responsible and accountable for their new found wealth of health care. so there is a lot of examples that are working in holding down costs. and basically making the market more competitive. we just can't sit back and let
it collapse. >> so i'm hoping that happens. but you asked me his overall demeanor. it was very energetic, very engaging, very lively, and it's not what you see on television, that people were either i like or i don't like, okay. so i said this. i felt something in the room that there was an ease about the president that he felt more comfortable trying to move policy and legislation in a bipartisan way than he would if he had to move it just drikly in a partisan way. and i see that evolving. he's more comfortable, he's more engaging in it, he gets more excited about it. >> rose: and there are more options, obviously. >> many more options, charlie. this, our founding fathers never design this to operate the same as our house. the house basically can say we've got 51% of the votes. we have 218 out of 435, and
whether you are a democrat in control or republican, we don't care what the other side wants. we don't care what they have input, we could care less. and george washington said, the senate is like the saucer that cools the hot tea when it spills from the house. the senate cools it off so it can be drank. that's who we are. >> rose: i think are you saying this, but i'm asking to confirm. there is a sense that when the president also met today with tim scott. and clearly he wanted to talk about charlottesville. and he clearly may be having some new thoughts, whether they are second thoughts or not, i don't know. but clearly wants to talk about that, an issue in in which senator scott, a republican from south carolina, an african-american had been very critical of him. is he now meeting tonight with pelosi and schumer, those democratic leaders in the senate and the house. i mean, do you feel like show 24r has been an inflection point, and this president.
>> go ahead. >> i think he understands, if is communication. you know, and chartie i don't mean this in a disparaging, i'm not casting anything to the previous administration, or saying anything about that. but i never had this type of engagement. i've had more engagement with this white house and this president in the six, seven months, eight months that they've been there, than i did in the six years that i was with the previous administration. and so i, you know, i, i appreciate having my words heard or my thoughts. i have been involved in public service. i've been the governor of my state. so i've gone through all of these challenges. and i have a perspective and i can share my mistakes that i made, hopefully we don't repeat them and also see the opportunities that we have. i just think that he is doing exactly what needs to be done, engaging. tim scott is a beautiful human being. he is one great human being. a great man. and tim scott gets it.
he came from that arena. he understands what is going on in that culture. and for the president reaching out wanting to learn more, i think that is tremendous reaching out to nancy and chuck, finding out, okay, and saying listen, guys, i want to work with you, it will be a give-and-take here, what can we do. i think it will open an opportunity to have more success than you can imagine. >> rose: did he talk about any mistakes that he had made, did he talk about the fact that perhaps he would have been better if he started with infrastructure. >> no, he didn't go back and rehash that. i said from day one when i first talked to him and he was going through the transition after he had gotten elected, but hadn't gotten sworn in, i said be careful going down the health care road. that's a tough one. and i can tell you, infrastructure, get your financial house in order first. if people trust you with their money, charlie, they will trust you with anything you want to do
in the policy arena. if they know you are prudent in watching their money and not just adding more debt, throwing caution to the wind, they will trust you, if they know you're fair and everyone is paying into this in a fair way and we expand the base and this country grows the way it should grow economicically, then we're all doing good. and i think that he's getting that. and i would hope, i said one thing to him. i said mr. president, there is not a pod hole out in west virginia or anywhere in the country that has just a democrat or republicans name on it. it has basically all of our name on it and it's our job to fix it so infratruck ture touches everybody. that is a win. but you can rehash that, but he has not left, it is not out of his arena. is he 100% committed to it. i will do everything can i to work with nim in a krukive way innocence any conversations about the dreamers and daca. >> not really, but my thought on that charlie, i said listen,
every time we get a chance, i had spoken to him before about this. we did a massive immigration reform bill, bipartisan, democrats and republicans in 2013 in the senate and past. that is a good piece of legislation. it considers all of the things that we're talking about now. i don't believe we should be piece mealing it again. let's go back and look at that. it has border security and bob corker and john halfen basically put the meat to that border security and it was great. you can't condition to repeat the problem and just think you're going to fix the faishia, if you will. and when the whole roof is falling in. so we've got to fix this entire problem and just taking daca, i would like to see a major, take the 2013 bill, let the house, we couldn't get it out of the house. they didn't even take it up. i would hope they would. >> rose: finally foreign policy. clearly the president is dealing every day with north korea. and he seems very concerned about north korea. >> what did he say?
>> we talked about north korea and he said you know, we just talked about it but we all know, i've been on armed services now, i'm on intel and everyone there has been briefed. so we know, we all know how critical and the dangers we have there. i think we're all committed that we do not believe that kim jung-un should be able to have a ballistic missile that can deliver a warhead to do horrific damage to the united states of america. and we've got to make sure that does not happen. >> rose: that is where it becomes tough, how do you make sure it doesn't happen. >> i know, well, use all the diplomacy you can, use every ounce of diplomacy. superpower means more than just having the military greatest military in the world it means having the greatest ability to having superdeplom see, so china has tone gage, russia has to engage. everybody in that region has to engage. and we have to be for real, we can't have him being able to still be able to secure
scientists and fissists, able to come in and develop his programs for him. there can't be any other countries feeding that. that's got to stop. all these things have got to cur tailt. and then you hope you don't have, the last resort is to take whatever, to take whatever majors-- measures that you need to take to prevent that from happening. >> final question, do you believe tax reform is possible, legislation is possible before the end of this year? >> i surely do i believe the sooner the better it has been too long in coming. if it comes out of the becomes and people are saying it is just for the rich and just-- can i tell you, i can only tell you what i heard in the conversation, that is definitely not where it's going. now until i see it, i can't verify that. but i know one thing, they want us to engage. they have reached out. and i want to engage and i want my democrat colleagues and republican colleagues to engage. i told the president,
mr. president, if we can put a bill together that can get 30 democrats and 30 republicans, wouldn't that be wonderful? right now charlie we operate in this vacuum, if you will, that you have to have all 52 republicans and that's fine if we need a closer vote at 60. let's find a democrat. or we need 48 democrats and let's find 12 republicans. charlie, that doesn't work. we have proven that's not going to work that way. you have legislation that can truly bring bipartisanship that is who we are. it should be about our country, not about the party identifications that we have and trying to protect this and i'm against you because you have a d and r by your name, that's just not who we are. and i think the president's understanding. i have told him in west virginia, mr. president, you got elected whrected by the greatest majority that any presidential election that we have ever had in our state. and i can assure you as many if not more democrats vote for you
as republicans. so it can't just be all one side. and that's why you have to bring us all together. >> rose: senator, thank you so much. pleasure to have you on this program. >> always good to be with you, charlie. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> there was a question of the establishment, you know. when you looked at the trump campaign you got the impression nobody from wall street, what happened to that promise that we're going to be different? >> so steve mnuchin was with us from day one, steve mnuchin was our financial advisor on the campaign, steve mnuchin, he had been a democrat, he came in early on and i think really understood donald trump, understood the economic programs am if you look at the tax program put forward i thought it was quite populist. president trump made a decision as he's going through pulling together his white house staff and his cabinets, that there was going to be a certain element that he had to have the
establishment as part of that. and i think that is actually healthy, we're not there to tear down institution us. >> rose: but that is exactly what you said you wanted to do. >> no, what i said we wanted to do was pierce the permanent political class, okay, and have the american people and the american workers represented. it's not going and pull the temple down around you from the firs day. you can't do that. over time you have to pierce that and you have to change if, okay. it's relentless work, day in and day out. it's like these people that ran around the campaign looking for some videotape of hillary clinton. this is not going to take place in the day. this is taking 40 or 50 years to build up, this establishment, this permanent political classic you cannot magically waive a wand and it goes away. >> rose: donald trump said to the american public well will change things on day one, not 20 years, day one. >> he has changed things on day one. he has gone after the swamp, off the permanent political class. by the way-- . >> rose: give me one thing he has done about draining the
swamp, one thing. >> the deconstruction of the administrative state, the way he has taken away-- . >> rose: changing regulation. >> changing regulation, that is part of changing the swamp. because big corporations don't mind the regulations because the way it keeps smam competitors out. his deconstruction administrative state is to make things more entrepreneurial, not more corporatist. is he doing that every day. he has a tighter team in the white house council's office going after this, his selection the gorsuch, gorsuch is one of the leaders of thought of the deconstruction administrative state, his chevron decision or thoughts on the chevron decision i think is the single reason is he on the supreme court. so president trump has been doing this. he has been doing it in a prudent manner. on the campaign what did the mainstream media say about donald trump and national security. he's a madman, he's crazy. the republican establishment came out, all the bush guys came out, in all those ads, okay, he's irresponsible, he should not be allow around the nuclear trigger. in going after the establishment just like a national security, he's done it in a prudent
method. >> rose: it's not just those guys t is the former national director of intelligence. >> absolutely. >> rose: james clammer. >> exactly. >> rose: said he might not be trusted, as an advisor to the president. and he says i worry about this guy's hand on the nuclear button. >> and look at what president trump has done as commander in chief. let's take afghanistan as an example. donald trump started decision making process day one. a final decision wasn't made until august. you know why, principle meeting after principle meeting, and meetings with him, why, continued to ask questions, continued to poke, to say are those assumptions right, meeting with enlisted men, meeting with generals, meeting with people. >> rose: he made a decision did he not expect to make. >> the prudence in making that decision, just like he made the decision on firing the miss nile syria, another decision i didn't agree with. but the way he weighs and balances, has put to rest, all the critics said this guy wasn't go to be prudent, wasn't ask
questions, would not be a could-- commander in chief that could take the best advice from generals, let's talk about another thing. the first thing trump wanted done was mike flynn and myself to deoperationallize the nsc. that is jar gone, basically get the nsc staff inside the white house from fighting wars, which was happening under susan rice, and ben rhodes, where they are actually picking bombing targets. send it back to combat and commanders, sent it back to the pentagon, to the cia. that takes a leader. that takes somebody that understands what his-- what he is supposed to do as commander in chief, make the big overall decisions, work with general mattis to do that, mattis, pompeo, all agreed 100%, does he get kriddity for that, absolutely no. he has done more i think to sort out the national security apparatus on his watch than bush and obama combined. he has been the most prudent commander in chief and he weighs and measures these things like nobody. 75% of his time is spent on these issues of national
security. let me talk about another thing, let's talk about the experts. these people, this group of experts every day on tv ripping on donald trump, thins in "the wall street journal" about donald trump, these are the guys, here we stand, what has done all trump inherit. the bay of pigs in venezuela, the cuban missile crisis in north korea, an vietnam and av ban stand. okay, kennedy at least had three years, those are all dumped on donald trump day one. and what does donald trump do. he goes through and sorts out this mess and because you know why, the national security apparatus in this country, republican and democrat combined have got us into a situation since the fall of the soviet union in 1992, we took a strategic holiday. we have a competitor and i would say almost an enemy in china that is running the tables on us. and all they've done is spread us out all over the world in this fetish they have for what is called the rules-based post war international order.
which is an interlocking network of trade relationships, commercial relationships and american military. >> rose: so you wanted to go to economic war with china. and many people would argue if you go to economic war with china, the people you are going to hurt are the people that you believe you are fighting for. >> donald trump for 30 years has singled out china as the biggest single problem we have on the world stage. the elites in this country have got us in a situation were it not economic war with china, china is at economic war with us, okay. the elites that got them in to the wto and the rules-based international order all argue, charlie, because they were on your show arguing back in those days. they all argued that a wealthier, growing china will be a freer, democraticically elected free market capitalism china. they were dead wrong. and every expert says that today. the only thing we're debating is-- hang on, between rational
accommodationists, to say as china grows it will always be bigger but we can be rational and kind of drive its growth to a better place and stay a good second power, or hawks like myself that say they want to be hedgic mondayic and they are treating us like they treated bar barrier ians for 4,000 year, we are-- we have to face a very unpleasant fact. in donald trump knows this at the core of his being. we are like jamestown to their great britain. let's look at trade. >> rose: in virginia. >> jamestown, virginia. we are-- we have a 400 billion a year trade deficit. but that trade def sis would be even greater unless we ship them soybeanses, corn, wheat, beef, pork, timber, coal, oh, and some bowing jets and apple pod, oh, stop, because now boeing has a joint venture to build all their jets in china and now apple has the cloud deal they cut to give them all the technology. china treats us like a trib you
tear state and here is the tribute they want, the reason donald trump lead with a 301 gens intellectual property. 3.5-- . >> rose: you want a trade war with china. >> i want china to stop appropriating our technology. china is forced technology transfer and through stealing our technology but really forced technology transfer, is cutting out the beating heart of american innovation. the tbie nses silicon valley know this,. >> rose: the president is often criticized president obama. the president met with him, former president obama after the election. what was that like? what was that meeting. >> i think, you know, i don't want to give up private conversations of the president but i think he was very impressed with president o a. i think they hit it off. >> rose: why did they spend half their time criticizing. >> before the campaign? >> rose: after the came pain. >> i think after the campaign, at least initially, until people started coming after him, i think he was very-- he and president obama had a great relationship. they really, i think, i think, i
think not only understood each other. he would tell you president obama gave him some good insights. >> rose: on north korea. >> and other hot spots, particularly north korea, an other lot spots around the world. think that it was a goodcalls relationship. it kind of went, it has kind of gone sideways and also because the democratic party has been unrelenting in their destruction, they're trying to destroy donald trump. you take this-- you've done this forever. you can't remember another time, even with richard nixon where they've ever gone after somebody to destroy him. rget the opposition and thewn democrats. the republican establishment is trying to nul fie the 2016 election that say brutal fact we have to face. >> rose: the republican establishment wants to nul i fie the 2016 election. >> trying to nulify the 2016 election. >> absolutely. >> rose: you were inside the
white house. you are no longer inside the white house. there is a new chief of staff. what happened to you? were you pushed out. >> no. i've known general kelly for 12 years. i made a film about 12 years ago, i know general kelly think highly of him, is he a great man. when the president asked me my opinion about the chief of staff situation, i told, i you have three choices but number one above all is general kelly f we can take the hit of losing-- he i said he is exactly the man you need, reince priebus never had the mandate general kelly had. general kelly pan date is difference than reince, okay, reince didn't have-- there were 12 direct reports to the president, president trump originally structured this very much i think like the trump organization where there are a lot of direct reports. the chief of staff never had the mandate. and honestly, reince would tell you, he did not have the gravitas probably to enforce with as many a type personalities. general kelly i told the president, general kelly has the
gravitas, the respect of everything, general kelly will set up a process. >> rose: did general kelly say to you have to go. >> absolutely not. i went to general kelly on august 7th after meeting with the meressers over june and july, saying my one year an verse is coming up. in fact when i went to him i said hey, i am going to put in my letter of resignation and be out of here on the 14th it will be one year to the date. >> rose: but by that time, you know this, you were isolated inside the white house. >> that's absolutely not true. i was still, i had the same influence on the president i had on day one. the media makes this all up. president, president bannon, the bannon svengali to the president. he still listened to me, by the way, the 301 nafta 23 2-rbgs look at all the trade stuff, that was all approved under general kelly. >> rose: do you know that this white house leaks like nobody has ever seen a white house leak. and you have in fact said no administration in the history has been so divided among itself about the direction, about where
it should go. what is the divide? >> the divide is first off president trump and the way president trump has always run his organizations. he will always take diverge ent views, right, he learns by the-- he questions by the sock rattic method, he talks to a wide range of people. there are always going to be diverge ent views and quite frankly i think that is healthy. because i think-- now the one thing i disagree with, is that i think there has been a divide in this administration from the beginning, it's quite obvious. there's one group of people that on the campaign, by the way t is basically the campaign, came on, said all you have to do is do what you said you were going to do in these major areas, let's punch out one thing after the other. will you keep your coalition together and we're going to add to it over time as you are successful. there is another group that has said let's compromise and let's try to reach out to democrats and try to work on things that we can do together. and and-- that way is a better
way to do it,. >> rose: do you deny that you called gary choans-- cohen, jared kushner and others there globalists, that your term of contempt for them. >> i wouldn't term it contempt at all. >> rose: what is it. >> an economic nationalist-- . >> rose: you believe that those people in a sense are working against the president, the people that the president wants at his side. >> no. >> rose: you believe. >> -- because they are global, because they believe in globalization. >> they believe that the president's program, they believe that the president's program can be better put forward by having it more in tune with the globalist financial arrangement we have today. and they believe that to the core of their being. and they've done work and i think some of it has been positive work. i think what jared has done in the white house, particularly in the middle east. what jared kushner has done before the saudi trip with the
uae saudi arabia and 595 nations has never been done in american history. that piece that donald trump gave is because jared kushner started working on day one. >> rose: what do you think of hr mcmaster. >> general mcmaster and i could not be more diverge ent in our views on national security. >> rose: could not be more diverge ent. >> the website that you came from and that you are going back to, has a constant drum beat of criticism of the president's national security advisor. now is that serving the president? >> absolutely, absolutely. the president needs to see diverge ent views just like on afghan situation. you can't, by the way, mcmaster, general mcmaster has done a very good job of curating, have a brent scoa croft model of curating but i was vocal from day one, very vocal from day one that the american first jacksonian foreign policy, okay, was not because there are so many obama
detailees, so many people from the-- from the national security apparatus that i believe it was not getting a full floated defense. >> rose: so are you saying hr mcmaster and jared kushner and ivanka trump, even though they opposed views that you had on climate and on the paris accord, they have your full support and you hope they are there in the white house sticking up for what they believe in? >> absolutely. >> rose: i think they are terrific people. on the campaign. >> in their ideas, by the way, in their ideas, as long as they counter balanced by the peter navarro and steven miller and the economic nationalists, i think we'll be fine, but i do believe and i've told the president this and the president knows this, that if he goes to his default position and goes and follows what he ran on and what he believes in the core of his being, okay, not only is he going to have a massively successful first term, he's going to win a second term by a much bigger majority than he won
the first. and i think over 400 electoral votes. i think minnesota and states like that, colorado, are firmly within our grass paragraph. so all you have to do is stick with the program. i don't mind-- he's never going to have something that just has, you know, one point of view, okay. it's just not the way he operates. will always get diverge ent views, he does this anyway because he calls people up and get their opinion. >> there is an investigation as you have mentioned, three in the congress, and one by robert mueller investigating russian influence in the election. what do you believe. >> i was there, it is a total and complete fares. russian collusion is a farce. >> i didn't say collusion. >> did the russians try to influence the election? >> if you consider maybe something they did. >> rose: maybe something they did. >> it is not what the-- st not what the cia believes what the fbi believes. >> have you seen the intelligence reports. >> rose.
>> okay, fine. >> rose: you have seen them. >> have i seen them. >> rose: are you saying those intelligence reports do not suggest that the russian tries to. >> i would never divulge classified information on this show but let me tell you, i think it is far from con cluesive that the russians had anything impact on this election. >> rose: that's not the question. did they try to influence the american election. that is what the investigation is about. >> we'll have to wait until the investigation is finished. we have to wait until the investigation is infished. i think everybody, i think all of you out there, that are hanging your hat on that, there is going to be some-- . >> rose: some big revelation, i think you will be soarly disappoint. let's wait. by the way, you have two intelligence, the senate and the house intelligence committee, why don't you wait until you finish the report, let's see, that is what they are trying to do do, they will get it out to the public in time. i happen to think that today mitch mcconnell and paul ryan ought to tell those committees you wrap up all your work and i want to see all your work in 90 days. that before christmas. >> rose: why does the president find it so hard to
criticize russia? >> charlie, this is what stuns me. i was a junior naval officer, when i was on a ship, my destroyer was set up to hunt soviet sub marines, when i came back to the pentagon to work as a aide to the cheefer, first day of the reagan administration on the warplane to destroy the soviet union. the sofer yet union collapsed in 19 -9d 2. i'm back in 2012, in the cold war hasn't ended. right. i don't think the president goes out of his way, his point is, why pick another fight. we got enough problems around the world. >> rose: so don't criticize the russians because we don't need another fight. >> he criticizes the russians all the time. he knows the russians are not good guys, they are a clep tok see, he dunts-- by the way, this is not a naive guy, is he a man of the world. he understands the shortcomings of people, he understands the world, okay am is he there every day. he doesn't put the russians up on some pedestrian sal. -- pedestal t is another fantd see of the opposition party, that is is my point, i don't
take the media certificate rusely t is a propaganda arm for the permanent political class. all they do is make a mountain out of a mole hill. we should be focused on how we bring the cold war to an end, so we don't have to, and i think it was president obama's program, one trillion dollars to upgrade the nubbing lar arsenal s that what you want to do what you want to spend your money, would you rather spend a trillion dollars in cleveland, in baltimore, in the inner cities of this country, in the heart 4r57bd of this nation, would you not rather spend it there or another cold war because that is where it is headed and is not acceptable and donald trump knows that, i think what he is trying to say n a world of anarchy do you need another enemy, do we need to insult people. >> rose: let me talk about inside the white house. james comey was fired, correct? >> as i remember, yes, sir. >> rose: were you in favor of him being fired? s' been reported i was adamantly is opposed to it. >> rose: so in in case the
media is right. >> i'm a big believer in this city, that it is a stiff institutions not individuals. and i think you have to look at it as institutions. the fbi is the steuks. the speaker of the house is an institution. the majority leader is an institution. okay, the justice department is an institution. they have an institutional logic of how they proceed and what they are going to do. you can't get caught up in individuals but have you not. >> rose: as soon as you say that, steve, you have announced that you want to go to war against mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate, you want to go to war with him. >> yes. >> rose: and you just said he represents an institution, the senate of the united states, majority leader. want to go to war with paul ryan and he represents an institution. >> yes. >> rose: so you want to go to war but you didn't want to go to bar. >> no. >> rose: against james comey because you thought he represented another institution, the fbi. is there not a contradiction in that. >> no, it's not, with mcconnell and ryan, those institutions can be changed if the leadership is
changed. i don't believe that the institutional logic of the fbi and particularly in regards to an investigation could possibly be changed by changing out the head of it. >> rose: it is also true many sayk and are you a smart guy, that if james comey had not been fired you would not have the mueller investigation. true? >> i don't think there is any-- i don't think there is any doubt that if james comey had not been fired we would not have a special counsel, yes. >> rose: there would not have the mueller investigation. >> would not have the mueller investigation would, not have the mueller investigation in the betd that clearly-- breathed that mr. mueller is going through. >> rose: do you believe mr. mueller should be fired. >> no, i do not. >> rose: have there been discussions in the white house about firing him. >> i would not tell you about discussions in the white house but i would tell you, nothing i ever heard like that. >> rose: someone said to me that you described the firing of james comey, you are a student of history. as the biggest mistake in
political history. >> that would be probably, that would probably too bombastic even for me but maybe modern political history. >> rose: so the firing of james comey was the biggest mistake in modern political history. >> if are you saying that that is associated with me, then i will leave it at that. >> rose: because snr. >> is there is nothing to the russia investigation. st a waste of time if there is nothing to it why don't you let the mueller investigation continue their investigation. >> i didn't say anything about the mueller investigation. >> mueller investigation is under the deputy attorney general and mueller has got his own mandate and he is going down this mandate you see by the people retiring, he is going to shall-- i have never said anything about the mueller investigation. i am talking about the investigations on capitol hill that are empowered by republican and republican establishment. those three investigations should have a very short life
and they should get on with it and it should be controlled by republicans. the house committee. >> rose: you can tell me, tell me right now who runs the, who runs the house. >> house investigation. >> you you this is adam shif. >> absolutely. >> rose: republican chairman. >> it is not republican chairman. hi ten people in the last week, who ran t they couldn't name the name, one said i think it is the congressman from texas, adam schiff is in the media every day, running it. is he the one leaking all the material every day. add am schiff just like mark warner is running the senate and it is unsemmable. this shows you that, if sen shows you the republican steaksment does not have the back and their donors, the paul singers of the world, that do not have the back of the president of the united states look to those committees it sun acceptable that we have in a republican controlled house and republican controlled senate that you have committees with open-ended mandates to come and do what they will. i am not for shutting down these
committees, what i am for is giving a specific target, and say you have to have a joint report by both the republicans and the democrats by a date certain and that date should be thanksgiving or there around this year. they should get on with it. otherwise it is just a fishing expedition t is unsatisfactory and it is unprecedentedded in american history this is how much they hold donald trump in contempt, this is how much they want-- . >> rose: they, the republican leadership. >> republican leadership holds him in contempt it. you can see it right there. where they had his brook on hi-- where have they had done all trump's back on any-- . >> rose: so therefore, now that you are out of the white house, are you going to war with them. >> absolutely,. >> rose: what will you do when you say you had influence in the white house but now become at breet bar you have power. what is your power. >> the power is to galvanize the grass roots movement. i was very involved in the tea party, very involved in the grass roots movement. the conservative movement in this town, the conservative move nment the heartland, the grass
roots movement is the single most important part of the coalition that came together that elected donald trump. they are what senator mccain called the hobbits. okay. it is the forgotten man. okay. it is the people that hold our churches together, our civic society, that coach little league, that grass roots conservative movement which the republican establishment holds in contempt and has always held in contempt, they have finally found a champion in donald trump. my purpose out here in breitbart, okay, and my other organization is to help to galvanize that conservative movement, galt vannize and tell them simply guess what, you won in 2016t is not over, you will have to fight every day. >> rose: will donald trump one run as a republican in 2020. >> absolutely, will run again, will win bigger, all we have to do is punch out the plan, by the way minnesota is going to fall, minnesota is going to fall, colorado, he is on the path, if
he does what he says, if he accomplishes what he said, and he can accomplish it, it is within human agency to do it, will get 400 electoral votes in 2020. >> rose: the republicans are trying to fullify the election. >> yes. >> rose: who? >> i think mitch mcconnell and to a degree paul ryan. i have had a very good relationship with paul ryan but i think the leadership is trying to nulify. >> rose: to what end? >> to what end. >> rose: to get their former colleague as president? >> i think they're trying to nulify to get their own program instituted first. and then we'll see what happens later. they do not want donald trump's populist economic nationalist agenda to be imimplemented t is very obvious it is obvious as night follows day. mitch mcconnell when we firs met him, he said i think in one of the first meetings in trump tower with the president, as we're wrapping up, he basically said i don't want to hear any
more of this drain the swamp talk. flat out. he goes a guy up on can toll hill can't buy a coke unless he's got to be reported. i can't hire any smart people because everybody is all over him for reporting requirements and pay, et cetera, and the scrutiny, you have to back off that. the drain the swamp, was mitch mcconnell day one did not want to go there, wanted us to back off. and he has not, the president has brought up this thing on the filibuster, the 60 vote rule is blocking all his potential legislation, all these back flips with all this kind of very technical stuff with these other bills you have to pass in order to get around the 60 vote requirement. the president is-- mitch mcconnell let him know in no uncertain terms, not interested. >> rose: what are you going to do. >> galvanize the grass roots. >> rose: you tried this al toning him and he saw whatry happened in kentucky. >> that guy is governor of kentucky today. >> rose: but he lost by 20 points. >> he did, okay, it was his
first time in politics, a businessman, also governor of kentucky and one of the rising populist stars in the plit kal-- by the way, this is a long-term, i didn't say, just like the drain the swamp is not going to take place in eight months t will not take other one election cycle or two election cycles, this will take 20 or 30 years to sort out. that is why we are building a grass root base of guys like bevin in kentucky who can get his clock cleaned against mcconnell. put a few dents on mitch mcconnell, his approval rating today in kentucky is at 18%. by the way, what we are going to do, is going to support the grass roots movement will support judge moore, down in alabama wrz it is not donald trump's candidate. >> were you supporting judge moore, is he supporting his opponent. that is where you were going. you pledged your loyalty to the president and your commitment to the president and to his program, you go to alabama and you are on different sides within the president would be the first to tell you, i believe, as you see it now,
because he has not come out and done anything of an endorsement, okay, since the first round took place, that he is stepping a side on this. because he understands that-- signed at greement that mcconnell had to support the filibuster, that he understands that judge moore is problemly-- that all of his supporters are backing judge moore, that people that are not supporting the president's agenda, that are coming up for election in 18, they ought to understand they're going to get primaried, that the grass roots movement today is looking at primary-- you already see announcements in nevada, in arizona. there is going to be announcements in places like-- . >> rose: the president's support. >> ultimately i believe it will have the president's support. >> rose: to rip apart the republican party. >> not rip apart the republican party at all, to run grass roots populists, and economic nationalists to these seats is
not-- it is rejuvenating the republican party, the republican party, the republican party could not win national elections. john mccain a war hero and mitt romney a successful businessman showed you. it was incapable of winning national elections. the trump coalition, and particularly the trump coalition in the upper midwest of working class people shows you that we are on the path of power, if you only reinforce the policies you told those people you were going to do. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visited us on-line at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. #r #r 6 captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh
>> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. the hunt for yield. the dow closes at a fresh record. but where else can investors find return as the market inches higher? >> rise of the machines. artificial intelligence is transforming the job market. now one city considers a tax on robots. hitting a wall. flipping houses has been hot. but now those same flippers are flipping out. those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday, september good evening, everyone, and welcome. the dow extends its hot streak. the world's most recognizable stock market index closed at a record for the 38th time this year. even as the other major